European Ban on E-Cigs?

tommy2bad

Bumping this because the EU commision has published it's proposals for the TPD.

The main troubling features include:
Allows only single-use cartridges. No refillable units or tanks will be permitted.
Allows only flavours already approved for use in NRT.
Limits nicotine density to 20mg/ml maximum with no justification
Limits nicotine content of any container to just 10mg/unit – this is extremely low and arbitrary (see new paper
Allows only devices that “deliver nicotine doses consistently and uniformly” – an unnecessary, severe and limiting technical challenge
Bans all advertising in press or printed publications (except trade), on radio, TV and other audiovisual services and the internet (through “information society services“)
Bans e-cigarette sponsorships that have cross border impact (e.g. anything that might be shown on TV)
Applies onerous and unnecessary warning, labelling and leaflet requirements that may be impractical
Bans cross border distance sales (internet etc)
Requires manufacturers to track so-called ‘adverse effects’ even though nicotine is widely used and understood
Requires the submission of large quantities of seemingly irrelevant technical and commercial data
Asserts (against the evidence) that e-cigarettes “simulate smoking behaviour and are increasingly used and marketed to young people and non-smokers”.
http://www.clivebates.com/?p=1655

Time to get in contact with Jimmy and his croneys again.
This may be just trying it on but as their is pressure to get the TPD through they could garner enough votes to actually make this law.
Unless we fight this, it will happen.

was.deevey

That is utterly TERRIFYING news !

In other words, unless you are a huge multinational corporation, with a ton of money to support both R&D, new standards compliance certificates etc ... you will not be able to sell ecigs or juices legally.

Limiting the sale of the "new" products by one of two existing groups realistically.

1. Tobacco Companies
2. Big Pharma

Allows only devices that “deliver nicotine doses consistently and uniformly”

There is no such unit in existence yet that I'm aware of ? ... anyone ?

tommy2bad

was.deevey wrote: »

That is utterly TERRIFYING news !

In other words, unless you are a huge multinational corporation, with a ton of money to support both R&D, new standards compliance certificates etc ... you will not be able to sell ecigs or juices legally.

Limiting the sale of the "new" products by one of two existing groups realistically.

1. Tobacco Companies
2. Big Pharma



There is no such unit in existence yet that I'm aware of ? ... anyone ?

Yes basically what they will allow is what the tobacco co already sell. As to consistent doses, even NRT patches and gum cant do that.
This reads like it was written by a pharma layer with some help from BT's layers.

DubTony

Allows only devices that “deliver nicotine doses consistently and uniformly”

was.deevey wrote: »

There is no such unit in existence yet that I'm aware of ? ... anyone ?

Cigarettes?


It seems this is how the EU works.
If they didn't give the "right" answer the first time, ask them again until they do.

Scumbags. There are (not so) funny shenanigans at play here.

dePeatrick

Tommy, do you have a list of who should be mailed?

tommy2bad

dePeatrick wrote: »

Tommy, do you have a list of who should be mailed?

At this stage the MEP's have voted so the whole thing is in trialouge. The comisioners who are unelected and don't give a flying **** what we say have to come to an agreement with reps from the parliament and the counsil of ministers. The council of ministers is James Rielly and his oposits/equals from the other member states.
The only way we can make our feelings known to James or the comisioners is through our Dail. Get on to your TD's first and ask them to use any influence they have to get James to oppose this nonsense. Getting a question asked in the dail might throw some light on where the gov stand on this leave them looking more stupid than they do already. We know whare the minister stands and presumably the gov are of a like mind.
All their opinions have been led by various advisers from the civil serpents who are not accountable and prone to lieing. Unless we make a racket they will not even be aware of the level of opposition to this.
Don't forget the MEP's as well, while their vote is used their part of the trialouge is still ongoing and reminding them that their vote is about to be binned might help add to the pressure.
Watch last night's Dave Tackle box for a better explanation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twKAheU5fOk#t=197

I found a list of my TD on this site.http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinvolved/tdcampaign/locatetds/carlowkilkenny.html

Am I outing myself?

dePeatrick

Ok, watched that....and I get it...will definitely do the emailing, have never visited a TD's clinic in my life (was never that sick.....!) but think I just might do it for this....

My Father died from smoking related lung cancer, so did my Uncle on my Mothers side.......I smoked for 40 years until I started vaping....I could see lung cancer coming down the tracks like a steam train towards me tbh....now I have some chance....and a healthier disposition to boot....F*** them if they attempt to take this away from me.....:mad:


And yeah Tommy, now we know what part of the country you live in....can't be that hard to find John Martyn's fans around there....could it....:)

Green Hornet

Dr. Farsalinos blog. For those who haven't heard of him, he's a scientist who has performed numerous scientific studies on e-cigs. Very highly regarded and often quoted on UKV.

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/139-the-european-union-ignores

DubTony

Dave Dorn has gotten a bit excited about this.
Advice on what needs to be done here.

dball

Got this earlier from EZSmoke


EU Commission Proposal for the Regulation of e-Cigarettes

Dear ezSmoke Customer,

First off I apologise for "flooding" your Inbox, but after sending out an email offer this weekend, I did not expect to be sending another email so soon after. But this email is much more important, than any email offer that I may send. Rather than restate what is happening at EU level at the moment, I think if you read letter below that I sent to some Irish MEP's, you will get a very good idea of what is happening.

I strongly urge you to contact / write to your local MEP, and let them know how the new proposals outlined below, will affect you. Find your local MEP here - http://www.europarl.ie/view/en/Your_MEPs/irish_meps_since_1973/irish_meps_2009_2014

---

Dear (MEP),
As you are aware on October 8 of this year, the EU Commission voted to NOT make ecigarettes a medicinal product. The Key Points were:

Maximum of 30mg/ml of nicotine in eliquid
Products should carry health warnings
Products should not be sold to anyone under 18 years old
Manufacturers and importers would also have to supply the competent authorities with a list of all the ingredients that they contain
E-cigarettes would be subject to the same advertising restrictions as tobacco products

As an electronic cigarette user and vendor, I broadly welcomed this sensible decision by the EU, and truly believe that many 100,000's if not millions of lives throughout the EU will be vastly improved and lengthened by proper implementation of this legislation. However, today I have learned of a new document (link - http://nicotinepolicy.net/documents/policy/Article%2018%20-%20Electronic%20cigarettes%20-%20Commission%20proposal%2022%20Nov%202013.pdf) which is to be used as the basis for discussion for ecigarette policy in the TPD.

From my understanding this is in fact a "Confidential" document, but I am extremely concerned with the contents of same. As ex director of ASH UK, Clive Bates states on his blog "Make no mistake, if implemented this proposal bans every product on the market today and would severely limit options for future products ."

The main worrying points of this new document are (with my brief objections in brackets)

Allows only single-use cartridges. No refillable units will be permitted. (This is the system that vast majority of my customers use.)
Allows only flavours already approved for use in NRT. (The wide variety of flavours is what encourages many smokers to make the change to vaping.)
Limits nicotine density to 20mg/ml (I could handle this, but many customers would not be happy)
Limits nicotine content of any container to just 10mg/unit (This would only make eLiquids / Refills more expensive - does not make any sense from a health perspective)
Allows only devices that “deliver nicotine doses consistently and uniformly” (This is practically unworkable)
Bans all advertising in press or printed publications (except trade), on radio, TV and other audiovisual services and the internet through “information society services“ (You can't ban the Internet or what people say online!)
Asserts that e-cigarettes “simulate smoking behaviour and are increasingly used and marketed to young people and non-smokers”. (Evidence to date suggests that this is patently not true.)



There are other proposals, that I would also have issue with, but above are the main ones. Although the EU Commission voted NOT to regulate e-cigarettes as medicines, many of the proposals in the document seem to be doing the exact opposite, whilst at the same time adding the MOST RESTRICTIVE commercial restrictions that are already in place for tobacco, eventhough electronic cigarettes are of a magnitude safer than tobacco.

If these proposals go through, millions of smokers and vapers throughout Europe will be consigned to an early grave. I understand that there is great pressure on the EU Parliament to proceed with the Tobacco Products Directive, and as mentioned in previous correspondence, I don't have any great issue with the main parts of this directive. But, if such stringent rules and in some cases nonsensical rules are applied to e-cigarettes in the directive, then the Directive as a whole will be the greatest Public Health failure in the history of the European Parliament.

I urge you to contact your fellow MEP's and persuade them of the enormous benefits of the original decision on October 8, and to remove the contentious points in the new proposal. If this is not possible, then I would advise that e-cigarettes are completely removed from the TPD, and that new legislation specifically for Electronic Cigarettes is pursued, as e-cigarettes do not fit in well with either Tobacco or Medicines regulation, as they are a completely new and unique product.

Yours Sincerely,

Declan Connolly.

ezSmoke.ie
Cartron Road,
Kinvara
Co. Galway
Ireland

T: 091 637500 / 087 7972811
E: sales@ezsmoke.ie
W: www.ezsmoke.ie

Samba

This post also raises a lot of valid points.

It's effectively medical regulation without the medical regulation tag, what a bunch of slippery *****.

Wiggy

dball wrote: »

Got this earlier from EZSmoke


However, today I have learned of a new document (link - http://nicotinepolicy.net/documents/policy/Article%2018%20-%20Electronic%20cigarettes%20-%20Commission%20proposal%2022%20Nov%202013.pdf) which is to be used as the basis for discussion for ecigarette policy in the TPD.

Link not working?

DubTony

Wiggy wrote: »

Link not working?

Try this.

http://nicotinepolicy.net/documents/policy/Article%2018%20-%20Electronic%20cigarettes%20-%20Commission%20proposal%2022%20Nov%202013.pdf

Scofflaw

DubTony wrote: »

Try this.

http://nicotinepolicy.net/documents/policy/Article%2018%20-%20Electronic%20cigarettes%20-%20Commission%20proposal%2022%20Nov%202013.pdf

That's not a Commission proposal for regulation, that's a discussion document for use as a possible common ground between the Parliament and the Council in their negotiations.

The legislative stage the whole issue is at is the 'reconciliation' stage between Parliament and Council, following the 'ordinary legislative procedure':

1. the Commission made an original proposal back in December last year.

2. the Council agreed their position in June this year under the Irish Presidency, drawing a line where products over a certain nicotine threshold are medical, below aren't.

3. the Parliament adopted the Commission proposal, but amended it to loosen the thresholds, plus the various other points in amendment 170, in October

4. the Council has rejected the Parliament's amendments

5. the Commission is now trying to reconcile the Council and Parliament positions through a so-called 'trilogue', of which this document is part.

6. if the Parliament and the Council can't agree a common position, there will be another vote in Parliament on the Council's position, and it requires a majority rejection to block the legislation at that point.

So, currently, if you favour the Parliament's amendments, one place to put pressure is on the national governments. Ireland is unlikely to be the problem, though, because we're permissive with respect to e-cigs. Opposition is more likely to come from the countries which have already strongly regulated e-cigs, such as Estonia, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, and possibly France.

However, there should be a second Parliament vote if the current trilogue meetings don't produce an acceptable outcome. Both in that case, and during the trilogue, it's worth putting continued pressure on MEPs to reject the Council position in favour of their own (or vice versa, if that's your preference).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Stealthirl

Just sent a mail to several MEP's and to my 3 local TD's

Stealthirl

That was fast i got my first reply

From what I understand, the Commission is not suggesting a new EU proposal as such, rather the document you have is a suggested text within the actual Trilogue negotiations (these are the negotiations taking place between the Council, Commission and Parliament following the Parliament vote).

The views between Council and Parliament are so divergent, that the Commission has put forward this text as a sort of compromise. However nothing is set in stone and negotiations are ongoing.

I understand why you are concerned with it, and will continue to liaise with the MEP in charge of these negotiations for my Group (the European People's Party), Karl-Heinz Florenz MEP.

Kind Regards,

Gay Mitchell MEP

jakdublin

I happened to be in the European Parliament yesterday and was speaking to some of our MEPs (whist puffing on my device). They say they got loads of representations from the Irish vaping community and are confident Parliment's amendments will remain following the trilogue talks. If Parliament makes this a red-line issue, and it did sound like they were very supportive of vaping, the Commission and Council will have to accept that. Scofflaw is right, we should continue emailing them about it. One tip I did get is not to copy and paste generic emails. They usually just delete them as it's a tactic often used by minority groups to make themselves appear bigger than they actually are. Personalised emails are always read, if not always answered.
One interesting thing was one MEP said they had not had a single representation from the tobacco industry.

Scofflaw

jakdublin wrote: »

I happened to be in the European Parliament yesterday and was speaking to some of our MEPs (whist puffing on my device). They say they got loads of representations from the Irish vaping community and are confident Parliment's amendments will remain following the trilogue talks. If Parliament makes this a red-line issue, and it did sound like they were very supportive of vaping, the Commission and Council will have to accept that. Scofflaw is right, we should continue emailing them about it. One tip I did get is not to copy and paste generic emails. They usually just delete them as it's a tactic often used by minority groups to make themselves appear bigger than they actually are. Personalised emails are always read, if not always answered.
One interesting thing was one MEP said they had not had a single representation from the tobacco industry.

Yup - campaigns provide templated emails so you don't really have to put any thought or effort into sending your "views", and the MEPs quite reasonably treat those emails as reflecting no thought or effort.

Same goes for any politician.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tommy2bad

That was fast i got my first reply
Quote:
From what I understand, the Commission is not suggesting a new EU proposal as such, rather the document you have is a suggested text within the actual Trilogue negotiations (these are the negotiations taking place between the Council, Commission and Parliament following the Parliament vote).

The views between Council and Parliament are so divergent, that the Commission has put forward this text as a sort of compromise. However nothing is set in stone and negotiations are ongoing.

I understand why you are concerned with it, and will continue to liaise with the MEP in charge of these negotiations for my Group (the European People's Party), Karl-Heinz Florenz MEP.

Kind Regards,

Gay Mitchell MEP
__________________

Some compromise, I'd hate to see what their coming half way from!
Gay is kinda right and kinda wrong. This is not a compromise, it's a threat. Obviously they don't expect this to be approved as is, it's so extreme that it would put the whole ecig industry out of business, possibly including all BT ecigs.
The trouble is unless we make it clear that ecigs are the make or break part of the TPD they may gain ground with the level of restriction suggested in the commission's proposal. Only two of the parliament reps on the trialoug discussions voted against medicalization and they are the ones who have to convince the rest to stand against this even if it means the whole TPD gets postponed. The posponment is something they are trying to avoid as it will fall to Greece to pick it up. Greece are seen as soft on tobacco control. Lithuania was seen as soft too but recent investment by PM seems to have strengentned their resolve in relation to ecigs. Not suggesting a connection or anything......

Scofflaw

tommy2bad wrote:

Some compromise, I'd hate to see what their coming half way from!

Well, from a position where in some countries all nicotine-containing products are medically regulated. Estonia had banned them entirely, but the ban was overturned. Denmark classifies them as medical, and thus requiring a licence, but has granted no licences.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dePeatrick

Mailed my local MEPs and TDs......interesting to see who will reply.

Samba

That's odd. Snakes is no longer censored on boards.

As suggested template emails will garner less attention. When I contacted my local TDs I more or less gave my experience as a smoker and how I finally managed to quit using an e-cig. I also raised the point that medical regulation would be counter-intuitive to public health imo.

As far as I'm concerned the current proposals would be of no benefit to public health either, as they would risk driving vapers back to smoking and they would discourage current smokers from switching to vaping.

I thought I'd draw this up as the info is a bit scattered all over different sites and this thread.

List of people to contact

Local TDs

Irish MEPs

When contacting your MEP kindly ask them to relay your concerns to the MEPs who are currently in negotiations. (taken from clivebates.com)

Matthias Groote
Linda McAvan
Karl Heinz Florenz
Carl Schlyter
Frédérique Ries
Martin Callanan
Martina Anderson
Giancarlo Scottà

Last but not least - Presidency of the EU: Dr. Vytenis Andriukaitis ministerija@sam.lt

If anyone has any useful additions, please pm me or post and i'll get the mods to edit the post if necessary.

dePeatrick

Got a letter today from James Reilly...well his private sec. To say he is giving it his attention....

This is the only reply I have got so far.....usually Mep's in particular are on the ball as regards emails.....I wonder why so slow to respond for this !?!

DubTony

dePeatrick wrote: »

Got a letter today from James Reilly...well his private sec. To say he is giving it his attention....

This is the only reply I have got so far.....usually Mep's in particular are on the ball as regards emails.....I wonder why so slow to respond for this !?!

Same here, although I didn't send anything to Reilly .. cos I think he's an authoritarian b&%$£@* who'll do what he wants/is told anyway.

dePeatrick

DubTony wrote: »

Same here, although I didn't send anything to Reilly .. cos I think he's an authoritarian b&%$£@* who'll do what he wants/is told anyway.

I know.......:D

Samba

I'm speechless...

tommy2bad

Samba wrote: »

I'm speechless...

Lithuanians seem to be in a fit of pique at this stage;

From VTTV facebook page.

This translation from Frederique Ries Facebook page:-

"I get out of the trialogue tobacco. We advance on a series of points, advanced or compromised. But on the electronic cigarette that health ministers want de facto ban (rechargeable), it's downright nightmare. Under Lithuanian leadership, State in the war against the e - cig, no possible salvation in my opinion. Lithuanian Ambassador believed that I insultais him by describing his proposals for bad farce. No, it of very politely and very firmly that I refuse to condemn a sector that finally offers a real alternative to all those who are trying to quit otherwise, to reduce the risks. And that the Taliban's tobacco, sincere or less clear reasons want to penalize. It is more than a mistake, misconduct."

dePeatrick

It is more than a mistake, misconduct."

Interesting comment from Frederique Ries even if some was lost/gained in translation.

Disgraceful stance by the Lithuanians :mad:

Samba

I wasn't aware Philip Morris were one of Lithuania's top 10 investors

When you consider the entire Dalligate debacle, you can't help but question their motives.

robbie02

When will we hear some official news on the outcome of these negotiations? i am a very concerned vaper today, vaping has transformed my health in the last few months and now they want to take that away from me:mad: